[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ANNOUNCE: python-apt

On Sat, Feb 19, 2000 at 10:04:40PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe was heard to say:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2000, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> >  to see state.installed, and so on.  But I don't think there's any reason not
> > to merge these two structures so you can directly access, say,
> > Cache.Pkgs['dpkg'].mode
> Well, someday there may be a third structure ... Unless there is a way to
> add new ones in future easially it is probably best to keep them
> more seperate.

  Hm.  It may actually be easier to subsume the depcache into the package
iterators from this point of view.  If I make them separate structures I have
to maintain type objects and so on for them; if they just provide separate sets
of members, I can just tack extra cases onto the getattr function for

> > operation.  I could make them into sequences (as you suggested with the
> > version list), but this has the drawback that accessing an arbitrary member
> Make a member for everything that can return lists of iterators, even
> though it is horribly inefficient, it is the Python Way. So you could do 
> for i in Cache.Packages():
> and for i in Pkg.Versions();
> Remember, noboy is going to be using python because it is efficient, they
> want easy to understand :> Having the native iterators might be useful,
> donno..

  Right, but I'd like to avoid gratuitous inefficiency :)

  Currently I've decided to avoid having to artificially make the version
lists look like sequences and just return an honest-to-God tuple when the user
asks for the 'version' attribute.  I may at some point cache this in the
package, but it may not be worth it (I'll want to see how the various
objects get used in practice)


"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  -- "The Princess Bride"

Reply to: